NIL expert says Big East will be first, SEC last in revenue assigned to basketball …..

[noncomposmentis]

Just read this in an article from Seth Davis (HoopsHQ - paywalled):

“During an NIL conference at the Final Four hosted by Silver Wave Media, Blake Lawrence, the CEO of Opendorse, which is an NIL service and technology company, projected that on average, Big East schools will assign $5.7 million of revenue to men’s basketball next season. Lawrence projected smaller sums for the other power conference schools: $4.4 million for the ACC, $4.3 million for the Big 12, $3.2 million for the Big Ten and $3.1 million for the SEC. And he’s not guessing. Opendorse works directly with dozens of high-major schools, including several in the Big East, to provide them the data they need to set their budgets. “For most power conference programs outside of the Big East, their budget for men’s basketball will go down,” Lawrence said. “Football is a beast because you have nearly 100 players that will receive some level of compensation. Big East schools don’t have football money, but they don’t have the football burden. That’s where there’s opportunity.”

(SIAP - think this has been recently discussed but couldn’t find the thread)

 

[Wildcats1st]

Well that’s a genius for you. Everyone knows schools without fb or with a 3rd rate fb program will have an advantage not with NIL rather with the settlement if that comes to pass.

 

[YardCat]

SEC going to 85 football players

 

[LineSkiCat14]

So how come several SEC schools are already blowing past this $3.1m mark? They really think thats going to go down? $3.1m seems awfully small for some of these programs that are in a position to win titles.

And let's remember, conferences do have some uniqueness to them compared to other conference, and the SEC loves their sports (and maybe the "student" athlete part a distant second).. they don't seem to have any issue paying for it.

 

[jmw23712]

UK football is terrible. Until Stoops is gone, put all the NIL money in the basketball program and go back to dominating colllege hoops. Is that an option?

 

[WeWant9]

I really haven’t been paying attention to this, but does this just mean an additional 3.1 million in the nil pot or are they saying that’s all that can be offered up? If the big time donors are still allowed to throw money around none of this matters.

 

[Tampa_cat54]

Didn't the SEC agreement to do equal revenue splits fall through?

Meaning, the deal that ALL SEC schools had to budget the same dollar figure for football as each other, the same for basketball as each other, etc.

So basically like Bama, Kentucky, UGA, etc. would all budget (for instance) $22 Million for football

All 16 SEC schools would budget $9 Million for basketball

$2 Million for baseball

etc.

But I thought I read where that agreement fell through, so schools would be free to budget their revenue share how they would like.

In which case, we better be #1 in Basketball spend by a healthy, healthy margin.

 

[CaptainBoogerBuns]

UK football is terrible. Until Stoops is gone, put all the NIL money in the basketball program and go back to dominating colllege hoops. Is that an option?

No

 

[JwUKFan11]

That doesn't mean each school in those conferences will allocate the same to each sport. Each school can choose their own percentages.

 

[UKBrassowTipIN]

Well the big east doesn't have football... but even then the power leagues, particularly the big10 and SEC make exorbitant amounts more that even the acc and big12

 

[Fox2monk]

Just read this in an article from Seth Davis (HoopsHQ - paywalled):

“During an NIL conference at the Final Four hosted by Silver Wave Media, Blake Lawrence, the CEO of Opendorse, which is an NIL service and technology company, projected that on average, Big East schools will assign $5.7 million of revenue to men’s basketball next season. Lawrence projected smaller sums for the other power conference schools: $4.4 million for the ACC, $4.3 million for the Big 12, $3.2 million for the Big Ten and $3.1 million for the SEC. And he’s not guessing. Opendorse works directly with dozens of high-major schools, including several in the Big East, to provide them the data they need to set their budgets. “For most power conference programs outside of the Big East, their budget for men’s basketball will go down,” Lawrence said. “Football is a beast because you have nearly 100 players that will receive some level of compensation. Big East schools don’t have football money, but they don’t have the football burden. That’s where there’s opportunity.”

(SIAP - think this has been recently discussed but couldn’t find the thread)

Sorry but a million dollars spread over a 15 man roster is going to make no difference honestly, maybe they get one more player on average?

 

[cats#1again]

Sorry but a million dollars spread over a 15 man roster is going to make no difference honestly, maybe they get one more player on average?

It's 2.6 million over the sec. Over 5 years that's alot of money

 

[Fox2monk]

It's 2.6 million over the sec. Over 5 years that's alot of money

Sorry I read the ACC figure, still that is one star player max. 2.6 million means 15 guys get an extra 174k a piece. We could also decide to give that much to our program if we wanted. We will be at the top no matter what. I look at the revenue share money as a bonus on top of what most big time player deals will be and the ability to get quality depth pieces so the guys down the bench make closer money to the stars.

 

[cats#1again]

Sorry I read the ACC figure, still that is one player max. We could also decide to give that much to our program if we wanted. We will be at the top no matter what. I look at the revenue share money as a bonus on top of what most big time player deals will be and the ability to get quality depth pieces so the guys down the bench make closer money to the stars.

Im not sure if all the details on this, but that 2.6 million is just money you don't have to go out and get yearly from a booster or worry about. It may just be 1 player right now but that's a lot of money when you add it up over years

 

[Fox2monk]

Im not sure if all the details on this, but that 2.6 million is just money you don't have to go out and get yearly from a booster or worry about. It may just be 1 player right now but that's a lot of money when you add it up over years

Yeah but again, as a program we could decide to allocate a higher percentage to basketball if we want. They will make sure it’s Competitive at the top.

 

[jeffky]

UK football is terrible. Until Stoops is gone, put all the NIL money in the basketball program and go back to dominating colllege hoops. Is that an option?

Post of the year nomination could not had said it better

 

[jeffky]

No

You love watching train wrecks and disasters don't you ?The football program is a disgrace and embarrassment .i firmly agree no more nil money to football until stoops is gone

 

[UKBB4Ever]

This is only about the revenue sharing NIL generated by the schools.

Who cares if the SEC spends it on football. UK basketball doesn’t depend on that. It’s just a nice added bonus.

UK basketball has not been outbid for a player and never will be.

 

[trueblujr2]

SEC going to 85 football players

Only until the ruling is made. They will reevaluate after that apparently, but sure does seem like it puts the conference at a disadvantage in the meantime.

 

[JimboBBN]

Thing is, football drives all other sports. Including basketball, whether you want to believe that or not. If we completely give up on football, basketball is going to suffer.

I’m as ready as anyone for MS to go, but completely ignoring the football program is a big mistake. We’ve already proven we can spend with the best of them in NIL for hoops.

 

[JonathanW]

While I believe there is some truth to that, every school is not the same. Schools like UK, Duke, Indiana, and probably UNC & UL value basketball (compared to football) at a different level than do Alabama, Texas, Clemson, FSU, Ohio St, Penn St.
So even if the average SEC is $3.1M, you may have a UK or even Ark or Vandy at 2X that, but then Texas & Alabama as half that.

At Kentucky, men's basketball brings in roughly about 60% of the revenue that does football. But MBB has <15% of the athletes than does FB. Even though Alabama and Auburn have had recent basketball success, I bet that basketball brings in <40% of the revenue that football does there.

Also, this link has a lot of interesting info:

NCAA Revenue Sharing & NIL Estimates 2025

nil-ncaa.com

 

[truebluewildcat]

NIL pots in basketball will have greater effect. Even the smallest of marginal differences.

Just by nature of the game. You can spend 90% of basketball NIL on 2-3 players…hell even just 1 if he’s a generational phenom. The rest of the squad can be bargains.

Football you need to be 2-3 deep at almost every position. You can pay for a generational phenom at one or two positions, but that means you’re going to be lacking severely elsewhere.

 

[bthaunert]

I really haven’t been paying attention to this, but does this just mean an additional 3.1 million in the nil pot or are they saying that’s all that can be offered up? If the big time donors are still allowed to throw money around none of this matters.

This is revenue sharing based off the house settlement, not NIL. People get the two mixed up all the time. This is simply an average of what is thought to be the plan for most SEC schools. UK's will probably be the highest for basketball among all the SEC schools and probably closer to the ACC number of $4.4 million.

If...and this is a big if, the clearinghouse is established for all NIL deals and it actually works...UK basketball will be in a great place imo.

 

[bthaunert]

While I believe there is some truth to that, every school is not the same. Schools like UK, Duke, Indiana, and probably UNC & UL value basketball (compared to football) at a different level than do Alabama, Texas, Clemson, FSU, Ohio St, Penn St.
So even if the average SEC is $3.1M, you may have a UK or even Ark or Vandy at 2X that, but then Texas & Alabama as half that.

At Kentucky, men's basketball brings in roughly about 60% of the revenue that does football. But MBB has <15% of the athletes than does FB. Even though Alabama and Auburn have had recent basketball success, I bet that basketball brings in <40% of the revenue that football does there.

Also, this link has a lot of interesting info:

NCAA Revenue Sharing & NIL Estimates 2025

nil-ncaa.com

Football was slated to bring in about $55 million this year and basketball about $33 million so the 60% number is pretty close. What that number does not include is media rights, which is football driven. So that number is probably closer to 75% football when it comes down to it.

I don't think it will be anywhere close to double what other SEC schools do. They might allocate another million to basketball, but I don't see a world where they allocate another $3+ million to basketball than the anticipated average per SEC school.

 

[jeffky]

Thing is, football drives all other sports. Including basketball, whether you want to believe that or not. If we completely give up on football, basketball is going to suffer.

I’m as ready as anyone for MS to go, but completely ignoring the football program is a big mistake. We’ve already proven we can spend with the best of them in NIL for hoops.

Ticket sales are a disaster right now for football nobody wants grind it out for 4 quarters football unless you're booger not to mention all the other insane decisions this coach makes football is a horrible disaster

 

[seccats04]

UK football is terrible. Until Stoops is gone, put all the NIL money in the basketball program and go back to dominating colllege hoops. Is that an option?

Oh boy. You ever heard of a fella named Rembrandt? If not, you’re about to meet him.

 

[Ed Blanchard]

what time is the Pope press comfrance

 

[UKnCincy]

Football was slated to bring in about $55 million this year and basketball about $33 million so the 60% number is pretty close. What that number does not include is media rights, which is football driven. So that number is probably closer to 75% football when it comes down to it.

I don't think it will be anywhere close to double what other SEC schools do. They might allocate another million to basketball, but I don't see a world where they allocate another $3+ million to basketball than the anticipated average per SEC school.

Football may drive media rights in the aggregate, but that doesn’t hold true for UK, Duke, UNC or Kansas. Those basketball programs are valued differently. If you told ESPN they were going to lose the rights to either UK basketball or football and had to pick which one to keep, ESPN is going to pick basketball (and I say that as someone who is more of a football fan than basketball fan).

Take our contract with Nike as an example. It explicitly states that Nike is signing the contract primarily for the basketball program. It also states that if the basketball team were to be banned from TV, or have reduced exposure, then Nike has the right to reduce the amount they pay UK by 70%. If the football team were to be banned, Nike can reduce the contract by only 30%. So the relative value of the basketball team to our corporate/media partners is much higher than it is for football. Same holds true for the JMI deal. That was basketball driven

I don’t have hard numbers to back this up, but I’d also suspect that basketball is probably a bigger driver of donations to the university than the football team.

I agree that, in the aggregate, football is king. But there are a few schools where that doesn’t hold true, UK being one of them. I love UK football, but that’s the reality of things.

 

[CastleRubric]

Well the big east doesn't have football... but even then the power leagues, particularly the big10 and SEC make exorbitant amounts more that even the acc and big12

Big East also has a lot of ugly places to go live

Sec has it own unique draw

 

[bthaunert]

Football may drive media rights in the aggregate, but that doesn’t hold true for UK, Duke, UNC or Kansas. Those basketball programs are valued differently. If you told ESPN they were going to lose the rights to either UK basketball or football and had to pick which one to keep, ESPN is going to pick basketball (and I say that as someone who is more of a football fan than basketball fan).

Take our contract with Nike as an example. It explicitly states that Nike is signing the contract primarily for the basketball program. It also states that if the basketball team were to be banned from TV, or have reduced exposure, then Nike has the right to reduce the amount they pay UK by 70%. If the football team were to be banned, Nike can reduce the contract by only 30%. So the relative value of the basketball team to our corporate/media partners is much higher than it is for football. Same holds true for the JMI deal. That was basketball driven

I don’t have hard numbers to back this up, but I’d also suspect that basketball is probably a bigger driver of donations to the university than the football team.

I agree that, in the aggregate, football is king. But there are a few schools where that doesn’t hold true, UK being one of them. I love UK football, but that’s the reality of things.

Kentucky football averaged 4.5 million viewers per game this past season...that's the 9th highest average in college football and only 3 teams on their schedule had higher ratings. Kentucky basketball is nowhere near that. I can't find the regular season average, but the Alabama/Kentucky game on a Saturday in February drew 2.1 million as an example.

Just like you, I am more of a football fan, than basketball fan. ESPN (and other networks) care about viewership. Our football team outdraws our basketball team and it's not even close.

While I agree that when you talk about their relative popularity in terms of their respective sports, basketball far outweighs football. But college football is so much more popular than college basketball, that it makes Kentucky football more of a draw on TV than Kentucky basketball.

 

[UKnCincy]

Kentucky football averaged 4.5 million viewers per game this past season...that's the 9th highest average in college football and only 3 teams on their schedule had higher ratings. Kentucky basketball is nowhere near that. I can't find the regular season average, but the Alabama/Kentucky game on a Saturday in February drew 2.1 million as an example.

Just like you, I am more of a football fan, than basketball fan. ESPN (and other networks) care about viewership. Our football team outdraws our basketball team and it's not even close.

While I agree that when you talk about their relative popularity in terms of their respective sports, basketball far outweighs football. But college football is so much more popular than college basketball, that it makes Kentucky football more of a draw on TV than Kentucky basketball.

The 4.5m is based on the ratings for only 4 of our games, all of which also happened to be on ABC (which brings higher ratings than cable channels). And our opponents in those games were UGA, Texas, Ole Miss and South Carolina.

It’s not accurate to say that the 4.5m represents our season average viewership in football.

 

[bthaunert]

The 4.5m is based on the ratings for only 4 of our games, all of which also happened to be on ABC (which brings higher ratings than cable channels). And our opponents in those games were UGA, Texas, Ole Miss and South Carolina.

It’s not accurate to say that the 4.5m represents our season average viewership in football.

Thanks for the clarification. I got it from this graphic, which didn't clarify that:



This article has them at 1.48 million per game, which is 28th nationally, and probably counts all games:

 

[UKnCincy]

Thanks for the clarification. I got it from this graphic, which didn't clarify that:

View embedded media

This article has them at 1.48 million per game, which is 28th nationally, and probably counts all games:

View embedded media

The 1.48m figure isn’t right either. It’s too low in terms of average viewers, but I wouldn’t be surprised if our ranking is around 28th.

The 1.48m figure is based on taking the total number of viewers from the 4 Nielsen rated games and dividing by 12. This means you’re assuming we had zero viewers in our 8 games that were on the SEC Network/SEC Network+.

I suspect our average is closer to 2m, or maybe a little above, but that’s just a guess. The problem is that ESPN doesn’t pay Nielsen to track games that are televised on SEC Network, ACC Network, etc. Nielsen data is only available for games on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 & ESPNU. So, the data Nielsen released for last season only covered 4 of our 12 games.

But there’s a bigger issue with trying to do a straight comparison of average ratings for a basketball team versus a football because the products are consumed differently. There are so few football games that it makes them much more appointment television than basketball games. This changes how a team’s fans prioritize viewing and how many casual fans tune in.

As an example, it can be tricky to juggle career, family, etc with keeping up with your favorite teams. I’m much more likely to try to prioritize watching a football game than I am a basketball game because football only plays 12 games a year. This dynamic means you end up with a greater portion of a football team’s core fan base watching every single game than for basketball. So, the ratings in basketball get spread out a bit across games. In other words, basketball ratings per game are much more likely to understate the number of unique fans who follow a given team.

You’re also much more likely to have casual fans watch a football game between two teams they don’t root for than in basketball. That bumps up football ratings and isn’t necessarily driven by the teams in the game. And a sizable portion of this volume of casual fans watching a game is simply a function of timeslot and what network a game is on. All else being equal, ratings will be higher on broadcast networks (e.g., ABC, CBS) than cable networks (e.g., ESPN, Fox Sports). Similarly, ratings for games in the prime time slot will be higher than games that kick off at noon.

Those effects are greater for football in general. Which means you would expect a .500 UK football time playing a prime time game on ABC against Alabama to see a bigger ratings bump versus UK’s average, than for a #1 UK basketball team playing a prime time game on ABC against another top #5 team. That college football timeslot on ABC will almost always draw a bigger audience regardless of who’s playing. A portion of the audience is essentially built-in and whichever teams play benefit from that in the ratings.

What you can glean from this is that college football as a whole is much more valuable than college basketball. There’s no arguing that. But that doesn’t always hold true when you start to compare relative value at an individual team level.

 

[bthaunert]

The 1.48m figure isn’t right either. It’s too low in terms of average viewers, but I wouldn’t be surprised if our ranking is around 28th.

The 1.48m figure is based on taking the total number of viewers from the 4 Nielsen rated games and dividing by 12. This means you’re assuming we had zero viewers in our 8 games that were on the SEC Network/SEC Network+.

I suspect our average is closer to 2m, or maybe a little above, but that’s just a guess. The problem is that ESPN doesn’t pay Nielsen to track games that are televised on SEC Network, ACC Network, etc. Nielsen data is only available for games on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 & ESPNU. So, the data Nielsen released for last season only covered 4 of our 12 games.

But there’s a bigger issue with trying to do a straight comparison of average ratings for a basketball team versus a football because the products are consumed differently. There are so few football games that it makes them much more appointment television than basketball games. This changes how a team’s fans prioritize viewing and how many casual fans tune in.

As an example, it can be tricky to juggle career, family, etc with keeping up with your favorite teams. I’m much more likely to try to prioritize watching a football game than I am a basketball game because football only plays 12 games a year. This dynamic means you end up with a greater portion of a football team’s core fan base watching every single game than for basketball. So, the ratings in basketball get spread out a bit across games. In other words, basketball ratings per game are much more likely to understate the number of unique fans who follow a given team.

You’re also much more likely to have casual fans watch a football game between two teams they don’t root for than in basketball. That bumps up football ratings and isn’t necessarily driven by the teams in the game. And a sizable portion of this volume of casual fans watching a game is simply a function of timeslot and what network a game is on. All else being equal, ratings will be higher on broadcast networks (e.g., ABC, CBS) than cable networks (e.g., ESPN, Fox Sports). Similarly, ratings for games in the prime time slot will be higher than games that kick off at noon.

Those effects are greater for football in general. Which means you would expect a .500 UK football time playing a prime time game on ABC against Alabama to see a bigger ratings bump versus UK’s average, than for a #1 UK basketball team playing a prime time game on ABC against another top #5 team. That college football timeslot on ABC will almost always draw a bigger audience regardless of who’s playing. A portion of the audience is essentially built-in and whichever teams play benefit from that in the ratings.

What you can glean from this is that college football as a whole is much more valuable than college basketball. There’s no arguing that. But that doesn’t always hold true when you start to compare relative value at an individual team level.

Totally agree with the last part of your post as it's similar to what I posted above. The popularity of college football far outweighs the popularity of college basketball, which works into UK's favor in terms of the football program. Personally, I don't sit down and watch other college basketball games, but my weekends can easily be filled with multiple college football games. Like you, I will try and schedule my day around the UK kickoff and potentially other big games.

I just don't think that Kentucky is going to throw tons more money at basketball as compared to their SEC peers, even if UK is the gold standard for basketball in the conference. I just don't think it's going to happen. A positive aspect is that our NIL, as of right now, is one of the best in the country in college basketball. So, while our basketball team might not get a ton more revenue sharing in basketball, hopefully our NIl continues to be strong and we bring just as much money to the table as other programs out there.

Appreciate your posting as it's similar to mine. Love bringing facts to the table and don't mind having someone prove me wrong by providing facts.

 

[CaptainBoogerBuns]

You love watching train wrecks and disasters don't you ?The football program is a disgrace and embarrassment .i firmly agree no more nil money to football until stoops is gone

and replaced by who? The Tulane coach?

 

[UKnCincy]

Totally agree with the last part of your post as it's similar to what I posted above. The popularity of college football far outweighs the popularity of college basketball, which works into UK's favor in terms of the football program. Personally, I don't sit down and watch other college basketball games, but my weekends can easily be filled with multiple college football games. Like you, I will try and schedule my day around the UK kickoff and potentially other big games.

I just don't think that Kentucky is going to throw tons more money at basketball as compared to their SEC peers, even if UK is the gold standard for basketball in the conference. I just don't think it's going to happen. A positive aspect is that our NIL, as of right now, is one of the best in the country in college basketball. So, while our basketball team might not get a ton more revenue sharing in basketball, hopefully our NIl continues to be strong and we bring just as much money to the table as other programs out there.

Appreciate your posting as it's similar to mine. Love bringing facts to the table and don't mind having someone prove me wrong by providing facts.

Yeah, I’m not sure where UK will land in terms of allocations between the two sports, and hopefully NIL will be able to augment things.

However, the one tricky thing about NIL moving forward has to do with whether or not the new clearinghouse run by Deloitte can actually be effective. If it is, then all of the collectives and “NIL deals” that are in reality “pay for play” will go away. Deloitte will block all of those deals.

If that happens, then the only thing left on the NIL side will be true NIL deals where athletes are endorsing businesses/products. It’s hard to say if UK stays on top in that situation. Maybe the reach of our brand is strong enough that we still have more NIL dollars to keep basketball on top.

But it’s also by no means a given that this new clearinghouse will actually be effective. Even though the House settlement terms are close to finalized, there’s still an awful lot of uncertainty around how things will ultimately play out. Makes it very difficult to be confident in making any predictions.

Hopefully we can continue to invest in football while also keeping basketball on top.

 

[permdaddy]

 

[ukfan1622]

Ticket sales are a disaster right now for football nobody wants grind it out for 4 quarters football unless you're booger not to mention all the other insane decisions this coach makes football is a horrible disaster

Stoops looks like a football coach. Stoops sounds like a football coach.
Stoops is a duck.

 

[UKnCincy]

View embedded media

It would appear from his tweet that Jon Wilner doesn’t understand the difference between Phil Knight and Nike.

 

[Tubbyfan78]

You love watching train wrecks and disasters don't you ?The football program is a disgrace and embarrassment .i firmly agree no more nil money to football until stoops is gone

They had one bad year. This feels a lot like the Tubby situation. It may be time but the fan reaction to Stoops is disrespectful and unfair. This isn’t like Cal who was an ass and sucked for 5 years.